backtop


Print 119 comment(s) - last by Hase0.. on Dec 19 at 12:20 PM


An aerial view of the nuclear plant and processing facilities at Chalk River Laboratories.  (Source: National Post)

The Chalk River facilties opened in 1944 and have operated accident free for almost 50 years now.  (Source: TheStar.com)
Canada to restart its Ontario reactor which provides critical medical isotopes

Many believe that independence from fossil fuels is a fantasy, given the current state of alternative energy technology.  While many promising technologies have a long road ahead before seeing commercial use, it is too easy to overlook -- intentionally or unintentionally -- one long-standing bastion of the alternative energy field:  nuclear power. 

There is revived interest in this time-proven, existing technology that could satisfy much of the power demand in the U.S. and abroad.  The greatest obstacle to this interest is the reality that when people think nuclear power, fears about safety and nuclear waste typically are among the first thoughts to come to mind. 

Few realize the advances in containment, safeguard measures, and fuel recycling that make nuclear accidents in modern well-maintained plants a thing of the past and yield plants so safe they could stand up to full onslaught of a major earthquake with almost no environmental contamination.  These advances have also quietly improved the efficiency of nuclear plants worldwide, making their energy more affordable and easier to implement.

Nuclear facilities don't just provide alternative energy, either; they also provide isotopes invaluable to modern medical diagnosis and treatment.  These isotopes are used for everything from diagnosis of cardiovascular maladies to providing radiation treatment for cancer patients.

Cautiously, interest in nuclear power and applications is peaking in the U.S.  The exciting result of this interest can be seen in the recently announcement of the application for the first new U.S. nuclear plant in 30 years, submitted by NRG Energy.  Now the U.S.'s northern neighbor, Canada, is looking to follow by reopening a closed plant and resuming its nuclear efforts.

The recently reopened reactor is in the Chalk River Laboratories, located in Ontario, northwest of Ottawa.  The long-standing facility, which was opened in 1944, became the first facility outside the U.S. to maintain a sustained working nuclear reaction in 1945.  The site's history exemplifies the growing pains that at one time threatened to kill the nuclear industry. 

The site's plants and laboratories were marked by two significant accidents in 1952 and then again in 1958.  The facility is perhaps unceremoniously, best known for the possibly origination of the vernacular "crud" which is thought to be possibly derived from the acronym for Chalk-River Unified Deposit, deposits found by scientists on early test fuel at the plant. 

However, over time Chalk River cleaned up its "crud", adding modern safety upgrades and building new facilities that were significantly overhauled.  The site was and remains chiefly a scientific test facility -- although Canada has multiple other reactors that produce around 150 TWh a year. 

The Chalk River site is incredibly important, though, to the medical field as it home to a plant which produces radioisotopes used in a broad variety of medical applications.  It produces two thirds of the world's technetium-99, an important isotope used as a radioactive tracer.  It is estimated that fifty percent of the world's supply of this and all other isotopes come from this plant and over 25 million diagnosis worldwide a year are thanks to isotopes from this plant.  The facility is expanding, and is in the process of building two new MAPLE reactors and a processing facility to increase its production.

The existing plant was closed on November 18 for routine maintenance, which was supposed to last only to Nov 23.  Chalk Creek Laboratories’ plans hit a roadblock when the shutdown was extended by Canada's safety commissions which demanded the plant replace an emergency power system to the reactor's cooling pumps.  Many saw this move as an attempt to stall the plants operation and or close it, as the site already has extensive safeguards. 

The result was a landmark example for the necessity of these facilities -- over 8,000 patients in the last month were unable to receive needed treatment or diagnostic procedures due to the shortages.

Now, Canada's legislative body, the House of Commons has passed emergency legislation to reopen the path and resume Canada's nuclear efforts.  The legislation came amid a contentious debate between the Liberal party, who fought hard to block the reopening, and their opponents -- a unified front from the Bloc Québécois, Conservative Party, and the National Democratic Party -- who aimed to avert a serious worldwide medical crisis.

The Liberal party's Omar Alghabra sardonically remarked, "Will the minister [of natural resources] or the prime minister, for that matter, tell Canadians what will happen if there's a nuclear accident?"

The Conservative party leader, Stephen Harper, responded, "There will be no nuclear accident -- what there will be … is a growing crisis in the medical system here in Canada and around the world if the Liberal party continues to support the regulator obstructing this reactor from coming back on line."

The Conservatives managed to gain support from many Liberal party members and have passed the bill for emergency reopening through to the Liberal controlled Senate, where it also received the necessary approval.

The plant restarted on Sunday, and will soon provide relief to the isotope deprived medical community. 

The debate marks a growing conviction in the U.S. and Canada that Nuclear Power and technology can and should be safely adopted to treat both medical and energy woes.  Whether such sentiment withstands the wrath of critics remains to be seen.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By thejez on 12/17/2007 2:50:30 PM , Rating: 5
We better execute a pre-emptive strike against our nuclear neighbors!! They must hate freedom to turn on a reactor like that!




RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By TheShniz on 12/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By Runiteshark on 12/17/2007 3:00:57 PM , Rating: 5
You are an idiot for not seeing the humor in that.

But seriously, go ask some random people on the streets if they know what comes out of the large towers of a nuclear power plant.

Most will say "smoke".


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By Donkeyshins on 12/17/2007 3:08:31 PM , Rating: 5
That's 'nucular', Lisa...'nucular'.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By puckalicious on 12/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By Zelvek on 12/17/2007 3:21:11 PM , Rating: 5
Thats right we have more than 10%. Only Saudi Arabia has more oil than us.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By Warren21 on 12/17/2007 3:25:58 PM , Rating: 3
And if he took a walk in say, Brampton, he'd think twice about that 'brown skinned' comment too... ;)

(Disclaimer: I'm definately not racist -- lots of my friends are 'brown', just joking around, hence the wink/smiley)


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By ebakke on 12/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By Warren21 on 12/17/2007 9:10:02 PM , Rating: 2
I dunno... Who would have friends they hate?

I didn't mean to emphasize the number so much as the entire message, if that's what you're focused on.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By therealnickdanger on 12/18/2007 1:13:41 PM , Rating: 1
I hate my friends.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By Brockway on 12/19/2007 1:33:10 AM , Rating: 2
I hate your friends too. Wanna hang out?


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By Hase0 on 12/19/2007 12:20:06 PM , Rating: 2
hes not telling lies, a lot of people in Ontario refer to Brampton or Bramlea as bramledesh because of the large number of brown skinned people who live there.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By TomZ on 12/17/2007 3:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Damn right! If we demand that Iran give up it's nuclear ambitions and threaten to bomb them, why not Canada? Oh that's right they are not all brown skinned with 10% of the world's oil.

That's a pretty ignorant and racist statement. If you don't understand why Iran and Canada are different, then you might want to study up before you spew that kind of BS here.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By masher2 (blog) on 12/17/2007 4:39:03 PM , Rating: 5
> "If you don't understand why Iran and Canada are different, then you might want to study up before you spew that kind of BS here. "

Ironically, if Iran is allowed to gain nuclear weapons and then uses them in the Middle East, such people will be the ones screaming the loudest about why we didn't take action.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By thejez on 12/17/2007 4:50:31 PM , Rating: 5
if the ppl in the middle east are nervous about iran having nukes then why don't THEY attack them. The US shouldn't be involved... and because they get involved is why ppl dislike the US.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By TomZ on 12/17/2007 4:58:49 PM , Rating: 3
Iran having nuclear weapons (or nuclear proliferation in general) is an issue that affects the world, not just the Middle East. Therefore, it is right that the UN leads the charge on this, as they have been. The US only gets involved because the UN lacks any real "muscle" to enforce its directives.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By thejez on 12/17/2007 5:07:10 PM , Rating: 3
but they dont have nukes. And neither did Iraq. So why are we talking about invasion? Why not let China or Russia take a turn invading these threats to the globe...


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By TomZ on 12/17/2007 5:17:13 PM , Rating: 1
First of all, "we" are not talking about invading Iran. It's not even close to politically viable at this point in time.

And the reason that Russia and China aren't participating in pressuring Iran to give up their nuclear programs is because they would like to benefit financially from them buy supplying Iraq with the same. For example, Russia is supplying nuclear fuel to Iraq.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By thejez on 12/17/2007 5:32:48 PM , Rating: 2
well thats good thing (i am agreeing with you here)! Let Russia and China give them all the power they need. Its a much better way to handle the problem rather than threatening them (or warning them or whatever you call what Bush does) or invading them. Nobody dies and the US saves a crap load of money by not having to occupy the entire world.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/17/07, Rating: 0
RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By Haltech on 12/17/2007 11:05:46 PM , Rating: 2
"an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind" - Ghandi....its a good quote.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By therealnickdanger on 12/18/2007 1:17:08 PM , Rating: 2
"... Only if the one-eyed crazies don't learn the first time around."
- Nick Danger

Ghandi was an idiot.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By therealnickdanger on 12/18/2007 1:21:46 PM , Rating: 2
And apparently, so am I. I can't even reply to the correct comment. Oh well, my grossly satirical sense of humor will be flamed to "-1" anyway. Cheers.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By therealnickdanger on 12/18/2007 1:23:15 PM , Rating: 2
LMAO, I'm doubly the idiot now. I love DT's comment formatting. ;-)


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By fisher on 12/18/2007 11:17:01 AM , Rating: 2
you think it's a good thing, russia and china and iraq/iran building up a nuclear stockpile? yikes.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By Spuke on 12/18/2007 1:29:37 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly guys with the way things are going in Iraq, I doubt we (the U.S.) will be involved much in the future in world conflicts. We seem to be going to a semi-isolationist point of view. Most people I know would rather not get involved. I find it stunning that our government is so much unlike the people that voted for them to be in power.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By TomZ on 12/18/07, Rating: 0
RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By just4U on 12/18/2007 4:50:12 PM , Rating: 2
I am not American but If I had to make a observation..

Pre 9/11 America was in a semi-isolationist state. They were basically sleeping to the concerns and needs internationally until some nut job in the Middle East woke up your government.

Regardless of political affiliation's the American government will mostly likely remain fully awake for quite sometime to come even tho it's people are finding it to be a uneasy path to take.

But that's just my point of view. I know the states have made a few rather unpopular and perhaps poor choices abroad these past 5 years but overall their doing what the entire world needs to "wake up" to and participate in.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By animedude on 12/19/2007 3:26:57 AM , Rating: 2
Vote for Ron Paul?


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By jskirwin on 12/17/2007 4:12:01 PM , Rating: 3
Canada doesn't sponsor terrorist groups like Hezbollah, exported IEDs and rockets to kill in Iraq, sent assassins abroad to kill dissidents, and last I checked, its prime minister hasn't threatened to annihilate Israel.

I don't love hockey or winter sports, but equating Canada with Iran even in jest isn't funny.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By thejez on 12/17/2007 4:59:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but Suadia Arabia DOES. And so does Pakistan.

I don't understand this argument at all anyway. Why are we even in Iraq in the first place (or still there)? Why are sending our sons and daughters next to Iran so they can be attacked by them? Is Iran acting irrationally? What happened in the US when Russia sent it's troops and missles so close to the US? The US sent war ships and took an agressive stance! Why would anyone assume Iran would not do the same as the US did? What if China took over Mexico and sent over a 1/2 million troops? You dont think the US would start attacking them (albiet covertly)?? You bet they WOULD!


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By TomZ on 12/17/2007 5:06:18 PM , Rating: 2
You're going off onto a tangent. The point was the OP said/implied that Canada and Iran are morally equivalent, which is far from the truth. Canada doesn't threaten its neighbors, it doesn't sponsor terrorism, it doesn't deny the Holocaust, etc.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By thejez on 12/17/2007 5:22:30 PM , Rating: 2
And the US marching into Iraq unprovoked killing Iraqis and Americans is the moral equivalent to???? We threatened AND invaded Iraq. Are you saying that makes us terrorists? or maybe even worse?

Its ok when we do it though because we have better reasons than they do?
Or we just say, "woops our bad, guess we were wrong about all that WMD stuff. Oh well. Sorry about the dead."


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By masher2 (blog) on 12/17/2007 5:41:37 PM , Rating: 1
> "And the US marching into Iraq unprovoked..."

Did you miss the 10 years Iraq spent shooting at US and British planes in the no-fly zones, and otherwise breaking the terms of the 1991 peace treaty it signed?


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By thejez on 12/17/2007 5:50:49 PM , Rating: 2
You mean the no fly zones that were called illegal by the UN secretary general?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

we placated the soviet union and it's 40,000 nukes without a shot and you're really gonna say Iraq was a serious threat to the US? We really HAD to invade them to protect our borders? You seriously think war was the only answer?



RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By masher2 (blog) on 12/17/2007 6:03:15 PM , Rating: 3
> "we placated the soviet union and it's 40,000 nukes without a shot "

Err, there were a lot of shots fired in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the invasions of Finland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, etc. All of these proxy conflicts were directly or indirectly related to the Cold War and the geopolitical tensions between the US and the Soviet Union.

> "the no fly zones that were called illegal "

Boutros Boutros-Ghali can call them illegal all he wishes, the fact remains US and British action was authorized not by the UN, but the the terms of the Peace Treaty Iraq itself signed at the end of the war. When it first violated the treaty, it opened itself to any and all retaliation by Coalition forces, up to and including full scale invasion (which eventually occurred).


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By thejez on 12/17/2007 7:53:32 PM , Rating: 4
yeah but none of those shots actually contributed one bit to the eventual collapse (well maybe some miniscule amount). But the US supporting and funding militant islams (aka terrorists) in afganastan against the USSR sure did go a long way for our cause huh? Those are the types of activities that we are now paying for...


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2007 9:56:46 AM , Rating: 2
> "the US supporting and funding militant islams...in afganastan against the USSR sure did go a long way for our cause huh?

Indeed it did, yes. The conflict in Afghanistan is cited as one of the primary factors influencing the fall of the Soviet Union:

http://faculty.washington.edu/aseem/afganwar.pdf


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By valv on 12/18/2007 7:11:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
> "we placated the soviet union and it's 40,000 nukes without a shot "

Err, there were a lot of shots fired in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the invasions of Finland , Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, etc. All of these proxy conflicts were directly or indirectly related to the Cold War and the geopolitical tensions between the US and the Soviet Union.


Finland was never invaded.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By Netscorer on 12/18/2007 8:26:55 AM , Rating: 2
Afganistan was not invaded by USSR either. In fact, USSR acted to protect a legally elected goverment from the threat of being overrun by warlords sponsored by US.

Of course, they don't teach that stuff in schools, so ignorance is a bliss.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2007 9:54:59 AM , Rating: 2
> "Finland was never invaded."

Finland certainly was invaded by the USSR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By Netscorer on 12/18/2007 10:51:50 AM , Rating: 2
Yes,

but not in the context put forth by Valv. At that time Stalin was prepping his muscles for the eventual conflict with Germany. There was no Cold War and US was still considered nothing more then a curiosity factor among big European leaders.

I certainly have objections to using term invasion for all the conflicts that Valv mentioned. Even with Finland, one should not forget that that part of the world was long under Russian alliance and only obtained independence some 22 years prior to the Winter War conflict using the turmoil happening with October Revolution and World War I. Stalin never considered Finland as truly independend state, just like China does not consider Taiwan to be indepndend.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By TomZ on 12/17/2007 5:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And the US marching into Iraq unprovoked killing Iraqis and Americans is the moral equivalent to?

I can't really argue for invading Iraq; I was against that from the start. The reasons for doing so never seemed to justify any more of an action to be than what we did in Iraq during the Gulf War in 1990-91.

We did remove a brutal and dangerous dictator, and that is a good thing. I just think the cost to us was too high in all the measures that matter.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By clovell on 12/17/2007 5:48:00 PM , Rating: 2
> And the US marching into Iraq unprovoked killing Iraqis and Americans is the moral equivalent to????

Yes, the poor, innocent Iraqi members of the Baath party who endorsed atrocities against their fellow Iraqis and their neighbors. The same ones who jerked the rest of the civilized world around for over a decade with regards to weapons inspections. The same ones the UN failed to backup their word against. The same ones that had chemical weapons that were outlawed after WWI stockpiled. Somebody call me an ambulance, my heart is bleeding.

> Its ok when we do it though because we have better reasons than they do?

That's the idea. Reasons count.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By togaman5000 on 12/17/2007 6:57:56 PM , Rating: 3
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he was talking about the innocent Iraqis, as he stated, unless you're saying all women and children civilian casualties weren't civilians, and that every single one was a member of the 'Baath' party.

And I didn't even mention the male civilians-sure, there were terrorists amongst them. Of course, there are murderers in the US too. But what I'm wondering is, how many civilian deaths are acceptable in our crusade for peace?


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By FITCamaro on 12/18/2007 10:19:18 AM , Rating: 2
99.9% of the innocent Iraqi's being killed are being killed by terrorists. Not US forces. Yes we catch a few in the crossfire every now and then but such is war. You can't fight a war in an urban environment with zero accidental casualties. Our troops jump through considerable hoops to prevent civilian deaths. Extremists have no problem going full auto on a crowd full of women and children.

Just because we helped put a democratic government in power doesn't mean we're responsible for these cowards suicide bombing anyone and everyone they're able to. And if you try argue that if we hadn't gone there they wouldn't be dead, then I counter that they would have been slaughtered by Saddam. He killed hundreds of thousands during his rule. Maybe more.

Do you also blame America for every death in other countries where we've helped effect change but ruthless bastards kill innocents as retaliation?


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By clovell on 12/18/2007 12:04:59 PM , Rating: 2
> But what I'm wondering is, how many civilian deaths are acceptable in our crusade for peace?

Well put. I'd like to say zero, but that would end up costing us lives. War just isn't that easy - especially the type of war that's being fought now. I'm not trying to defend the war - having the benefit of hindsight, it wasn't a good decision. But reality is what it is - and it's not pretty. Your question is one that I can't answer, and I'm sure its one that keeps far more soldiers awake at night than politicians.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By GeorgeOrwell on 12/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By togaman5000 on 12/17/2007 7:03:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
9/11 was an inside job that gave the US a pretense to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.


Please, by all means, prove that. That statement is false. Any proof that the attacks were done by our administration for their gain would mean the complete and total destruction of our government.

Afghanistan was justified, and I fully supported that invasion. Iraq, well, we were lied to, and many people followed Bush with a smile on their faces.

Do you understand the implications of what you said if it were true? I don't mean to glorify the US's role in the world, especially since it's diminished so much in the past few decades, but if such a thing were true, it would affect the entire world, and I can't imagine in a very positive way.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/17/2007 7:15:32 PM , Rating: 2
I just ignore most of what GO has to say, it's relatively baseless propaganda of the conspiracy theorist variety.

9/11 was as much an inside job as the cold war was. Not.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By TomZ on 12/17/2007 9:27:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
blah, blah, blah, blah....

Do you think anybody is still reading your comments? Give it up.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By wilki24 on 12/18/2007 8:11:25 AM , Rating: 2
Your post is a target rich environment, and I almost passed it up because you're obviously one goal short of a hat trick, but...

One of the reasons that American morale is at its lowest point in history is because

I'm going to go ahead and say that the people who lived during the Civil War and the Great Depression might not agree with you there.

and stole $30 trillion+ of oil that previously belonged to Iraq.

Erm... I'm guessing you don't know that's roughly 50% of the cumulative yearly GDP of every nation on the planet, or that quantity of oil is around 30% of all the known oil reserves in the entire world.

Who knew Iraq was so wealthy?

And finally...

Wars are for money, not morality.

It's been that way since wars have been fought, but I'm guessing from your crazy ideas that you don't have much of a background in actual history.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By FITCamaro on 12/18/2007 10:30:25 AM , Rating: 1
Yes and the Saturn V rocket that supposedly took our astronauts into space for the moon landing was actually a giant nuclear bomb to kill off the Martians on Mars so we could eventually have it for ourselves.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By clovell on 12/18/2007 12:21:49 PM , Rating: 1
> One of the reasons that American morale is at its lowest point in history is because hideous inhuman acts, including invading another country, raping its population, torturing its population, stealing from its population, and murdering its population, have all been done by Americans, not because these people were any threat to the US, but because those people did not think what the US wanted them to think, didn't do as the US wanted them to do.

We invaded Iraq under the assumption that they were stockpiling nuclear WMD. Saddam was being a jerk and was effectively castrating the UN (not a large undertaking, I know) by continuing to push the envelope on nuclear weapons inspections. We invaded to depose the regime and find nuclear WMD. We accomplished the former, but not the latter. We did, however find chemical weapons stockpiled.

> So the US went into Iraq, raped, murdered, tortured, and stole $30 trillion+ of oil that previously belonged to Iraq.

The US invaded Iraq. Individuals raped, murdered, and tortured Iraqis - and they were tried and punished. How I would love for the US to have $30 trillion - no more national debt, no more devalued dollar, but alas, that is very simply not the case.

> The other reason morale in the US is so low is that most people have figured out that 9/11 was an inside job. That is a crushing blow to any belief Americans still held onto about the goodness of their leaders.

You can't 'find out' something that isn't true. Nobody with any credibility buys that crap, George. Almost 250 years ago, our ancestors reblled against one of the world's leading superpowers because we didn't want to pay taxes. Now, you crazies find out 9/11 was an inside job and all you do is blog about it? Pu-lease.

> This is how things are under the rule of the Central Bank, itself controlled by the ruling families. It isn't even civilized, much less moral. But that is the way money is.

That doesn't make sense the way you've presented it. You can't just tie a bunch of bad events to something by pointing your finger - you kind of have to explain.

> Iraq was butchered by the US for oil because the oil was not owned/controlled by any of the ruling families. The latest Iraq war is merely the latest in a series of wars that have all been geared towards the take over of the Iraqi oil.

IF that were the case, then the reasons would be decidedly different. We would have invaded Iraq to stabilize our own economy as Saddam was playing games with us and flipping the bird at the rest of the world. This is the same guy who invades other countries for oil and leaves them in shambles. We would have gone in to protect our own economic interests, as well as thos eof the rest of the world. We've also put a not-so-crazy government in place, and are rebuilding the place and buying our oil same as everyone else.

> Afghanistan was butchered by the US for oil and to get the opium supply flowing again.

I think I remember Osama Bin Laden going there - you know the same dude that organized the attacks on the twin towers.

> Ultimately, we must look at money and not morality. Wars are for money, not morality.

Money and morality are not mutually exclusive. You realize that you're the same as the people you accuse, but simply on the completely opposite side of the spectrum?


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By Pneumothorax on 12/18/2007 12:04:29 PM , Rating: 2
So does our favorite trading partner who provides us plenty of lead-filled treats for our future citizens of our country. China indirectly sponsors terrorism by willingly dealing with countries we have sanctions against.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By borowki on 12/18/2007 2:11:15 PM , Rating: 2
But the Iranians haven't burnt down the White House.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By Misty Dingos on 12/17/2007 3:26:17 PM , Rating: 3
Once we strike them with a combined international force (95%USA 3% Britain 2% Other). We will have to initiate regime change. After which the Canadian government will appeal to the US government for status as a territory. After a few years of that we can start making new states out of them.

Well except the French speaking part. We can give that to Sarcozy as a wedding present. Well that is if he marries that super model.


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By ebakke on 12/17/2007 4:43:30 PM , Rating: 2
I hope that post made you feel better. It surely didn't contribute to the thread.

(Ha! Much like mine!)


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By killerroach on 12/17/2007 4:52:14 PM , Rating: 2
"It's gotta mean they're all up to something
So quick, before they see it coming
Time for a pre-emptive strike!"
-Weird Al Yankovic, "Canadian Idiot"


RE: OMG RIGHT NEXT DOOR!
By Pythias on 12/17/2007 11:14:46 PM , Rating: 2
Green Day is all the excuse I need.


Chalk River is not the only Reactor in Ontario
By Flunk on 12/17/2007 3:04:19 PM , Rating: 1
There are 3 other currently active nuclear reactors in Ontario: Pickering, Darlington and Bruce. This story reads as if there is only one nuclear reactor in Ontario. Nuclear is the largest producer of energy in Ontario.




By JasonMick (blog) on 12/17/2007 3:18:28 PM , Rating: 3
Well I did say....

quote:
Canada has multiple other reactors that produce around 150 TWh a year


Thanks for the additional info on their locations though.

Canada definitely has a pretty healthy nuclear program, though it went through a similar trend to the U.S. in the 80s, seeing reactors get mothballed due to safety concerns that were largely paranoia based on a few mismanaged plants and the Chernobyl accidents of '82 and '86, which were pretty much (from my understanding) the result of gross negligence on the part of the Russians.


RE: Chalk River is not the only Reactor in Ontario
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2007 3:39:02 PM , Rating: 2
Now if we here in the US would only resume our nuclear power generation efforts. Its a clean, safe, reliable, and abundant source of energy. One nuclear plant puts out far more energy than a single coal or gas fired plant of the same size. And the cost of energy doesn't ever fluctuate like oil, coal, and gas can. After the initial cost of entry, you just have to perform regular, proper maintenance to keep it operating.

We can thank environmentalists for its downfall thus far. They yell at conservatives for raising the alarm at legitimate threats like Iran but at the same time fuel false fears of nuclear plants exploding.


RE: Chalk River is not the only Reactor in Ontario
By Wightout on 12/17/2007 4:23:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but doing so would damage the coal mining industry. No?

How many thousands of people could be put out of a job if nuclear power got put back production?


By masher2 (blog) on 12/17/2007 4:41:38 PM , Rating: 3
We put a lot of whalers out of business when electric lights replaced whale oil lamps. Do you feel that was a move we should have avoided?


By ebakke on 12/17/2007 4:46:34 PM , Rating: 2
It's convincing those people, or rather their congressmen, that's the problem.


By Wightout on 12/17/2007 7:51:37 PM , Rating: 2
While this statement is true, whale oil wasn't anywhere near as large an industry as coal is today. From mining to shipping to burning you end up talking about a HUGE population involved with coal. They would obviously not be put out of work immediately, but in time their #s would start to thin.

Dont get me wrong. I want nothing more to have nuclear power. I think it is safe, clear, and abundant. With more power on the grids we would more readily be able to move into electric/hybrid vehicles, which is where we are looking to move now anyway, but I doubt there is a politician alive with the balls and the support to pull it off.

mMmMmMm Capitalism...


By ImSpartacus on 12/17/2007 4:45:17 PM , Rating: 2
This is a capitalist nation, and we encourage competition. If the nuclear power parties have a better product, then the coal mining parties will have to improve their product somehow.

And who's to say nuclear power plants don't provide jobs? Maybe not as many as a full mining operation, but it's just as, if not more, safe than mine work.


By Haltech on 12/17/2007 11:08:06 PM , Rating: 2
how many thousands of jobs are created for the new nuclear plants....much more than coal. BAMM!


By CyborgTMT on 12/17/2007 11:25:40 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
How many thousands of people could be put out of a job if nuclear power got put back production?


And how many thousands would be able to live their full lives without the coal industry? I'm not talking about the whole environmental issue which is it's own argument, but simply the thousands each year who get black lung and the ones who die in accidents at the mines.

By comparison; even the including the worst nuclear disasters in the world, the coal industry deaths completely dwarf that number.


RE: Chalk River is not the only Reactor in Ontario
By jipmac on 12/17/2007 3:45:26 PM , Rating: 3
you quote Now,
quote:
Now, Canada's legislative body, the House of Commons has passed emergency legislation to reopen the path and resume Canada's nuclear efforts


and you start the article Canada restarts "its" Ontario reactor should be 'one of its"

Did two people write this article/blog, or did you just wiki or use a press release for the background info

PS without Chalk river the US would not have succeeded with it's Manhattan project., and Ontario's population is over 12M, I am tried of pleople thinking Canada/Ontario are some sort of backwater


RE: Chalk River is not the only Reactor in Ontario
By TomZ on 12/17/2007 3:47:22 PM , Rating: 2
Is everyone in Ontario as hypersensitive as you? :o)


By jipmac on 12/17/2007 4:23:24 PM , Rating: 3
No... but that is still no excuse for arrogance ;)


By Chernobyl68 on 12/17/2007 6:23:57 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure the "u" in CRUD stands for "unidentified" not "unified". At least, that what I was told in Idaho.

Also, wikipedia has a very good write up of the Chernobyl nuclear accident.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster


By Hoser McMoose on 12/17/2007 6:38:03 PM , Rating: 2
In case anyone is interested, there are a total of 19 operational nuclear reactors in Ontario as of this moment.

6 at Bruce Power (with two more being refurbished and one permanently decommissioned)
4 at Darlington
6 at Pickering (with two decommissioned)
1 at Chalk River (with two new reactors in limbo and several decommissioned research reactors)
1 at MacMaster University
1 at the Royal Military College in Kingston

The reactors at Pickering, Darlington and Bruce are power generating reactors, while the ones at Chalk River, McMaster and RMC are research reactors. NRU at Chalk River and the Mac reactor also produce medical isotopes for commercial sale.

In addition to the above, Ontario also has plans to build a new generating station at either the Darlington or Bruce site.

For the rest of Canada there are 2 power generating reactors in Quebec (Gentilly) and 1 in New Brunswick (Point Lepreau) as well as a few other research reactors. Alberta is also planning on building a new nuclear power generating station.


One Sided Article
By Zelvek on 12/17/2007 3:17:34 PM , Rating: 2
I would call myself pro-nuclear so don't take this the wrong way. The reason Chalk River was shut down was because its safety guards did not meet standards and they still don't. What good are these safety guards that you mention if they don't work as their suppose to?




RE: One Sided Article
By masher2 (blog) on 12/17/2007 4:40:15 PM , Rating: 3
Chalk River was shut down because the standards *changed* after the plant was built. Portraying the plant as "not working as its supposed to" really isn't accurate.


RE: One Sided Article
By TomZ on 12/17/2007 4:46:46 PM , Rating: 2
Right, and in addition, if the plant is not up to standards, it should be brought up to standards and then be brought back online, not shut down as the OP seems to suggest.


RE: One Sided Article
By Zelvek on 12/18/2007 3:50:47 AM , Rating: 2
Care to cite where I said it should be out right closed? I said I am pro-nuclear and that the plant doesn't meet standards. I rather would want the plant brought up to those standards.


RE: One Sided Article
By Hoser McMoose on 12/17/2007 5:45:34 PM , Rating: 2
The plant was built in 1958! Of course the standards were changed since then!

The real problem started back in 2000, when the first of the two MAPLE reactors were supposed to come on-line to replace this outdated plant. Neither of those two reactors are operational yet due to GROSS mismanagement on the part of AECL.

The NRU reactor in question was scheduled to be closed at the end of 2005 after a healthy 47 year life. However due to the above-mentioned mismanagement they needed to keep it open for several more years, and as part of that deal they were required to implement up-to-date safety regulations. AECL agreed to implement safety fixes, but failed to do so and lied to the regulator when asked about them.

So, surprise surprise, when the nuclear regulatory agency learned of this they told AECL to actually DO the maintenance they had SAID they did 17 months ago.


RE: One Sided Article
By masher2 (blog) on 12/17/07, Rating: 0
RE: One Sided Article
By Hoser McMoose on 12/17/2007 6:55:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and the bureaucracies that run them are notoriously inefficient.

... and THAT is the real root cause of the whole problem in this case. Inefficient (and some might argue, slightly less than competent) management.

Not that the CNSC is without blame here, it did take them 17 months to figure out that the repairs weren't actually completed but then when they did they turned around and ordered the plant closed that week rather than allowing for scheduled maintenance.
quote:
There's no need to invent a conspiracy to deceive

As someone wiser then myself once said: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." I hope in my previous post it didn't sound like I was trying to invent a conspiracy, I was merely trying to point out how badly AECL bungled this whole situation and that they had to be bailed out by the government.


RE: One Sided Article
By ChronoReverse on 12/17/2007 6:55:56 PM , Rating: 2
So basically it's a redundant system on top of a redundant system and it actually works but needs to be upgraded to a system that has a little bit less risk.

I can't believe they shut down the plant for that. Can't they just serve up notice to have the pumps replaced with a deadline instead? Especially since this reactor supplies more than HALF the entire WORLD's supply of medical isotopes? The Canadian government got something right for once, the reactor definitely should have been reopened ASAP.


RE: One Sided Article
By Zelvek on 12/18/2007 3:53:20 AM , Rating: 2
they shut it down because thats the only way to install some of the safeguards.


RE: One Sided Article
By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2007 10:09:18 AM , Rating: 2
Shutdown was not required to perform this work in question. The two-week shutdown was done for scheduled maintenance, then extended under order of the regulatory board, when it found not all the required upgrades had been installed.


RE: One Sided Article
By NaughtyGeek on 12/17/2007 5:04:13 PM , Rating: 2
I kind of wondered about that.

quote:
Canada's safety commissions which demanded the plant replace an emergency power system to the reactor's cooling pumps.


I get frightened when politicians get involved with the safety of a nuclear facility. Proper coolant flow is vital to the safety of a reactor and even though they can provide flow via natural circulation, I fail to see how a faulty power system being used for an emergency system is in the public/plants best interest.

This sounds to me like some politician's friend is losing tons of money while not producing needed medical supplies and being mandated to upgrade costly safety systems so a little "political lubrication" is being applied to get the plant back up even though there are inadequate systems in place.

There are certainly many safety systems in place on nuclear reactors but they are there for a reason and so are the inspections and regulations. Why not just fix the problem in an expedited manner and prevent future generations from being deprived of this safe abundant resource because we wanted to be irresponsible with it until we had a big accident which turned the public away from it forever. Money is NO reason to overlook a safety issue be it nuclear or not.

Plus, we don't need all those squids having to sit through another analysis of a nuclear accident caused by negligence. There are enough case studies already to make that point.


RE: One Sided Article
By masher2 (blog) on 12/17/2007 5:50:31 PM , Rating: 1
> "Canada's safety commissions which demanded the plant replace an emergency power system to the reactor's cooling pumps"

That isn't quite the situation. The plant was shut down for routine maintenance. When it came time to restart it, CNSC refused to allow it unless battery-powered backup starters were added to the existing starters on cooling pumps. One such pump already has the backup starter on it; the other will be complete within the next 120 days.

It goes without saying that the plant has run safely and succesfully for 50 years without these backup starters. Running another 120 days without one pump having this additional safety feature is hardly a critical situation.


RE: One Sided Article
By Hoser McMoose on 12/17/2007 6:05:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I get frightened when politicians get involved with the safety of a nuclear facility. Proper coolant flow is vital to the safety of a reactor and even though they can provide flow via natural circulation,

The reactor in question can NOT provide flow via natural circulation, it absolutely requires pumped coolant.

Remember this is a VERY old reactor design, one of the oldest still in operation on the planet. It wasn't built with the inherent safety mechanisms of a 1970s or 1980s reactor. That's why the nuclear regulatory agency required double-redundancy of safety systems such as the coolant pumps.

The specific issue in question was that there were two backup coolant pumps, both of which were supposed to be fitted with emergency backup power generators. One of those two pumps was not connected to a backup power generator.

quote:
This sounds to me like some politician's friend is losing tons of money while not producing needed medical supplies

The head of AECL (company that operates the Chalk River facility), who just resigned over this issue, was a political appointee and had previously worked as the cheif fund raiser for Prime Minister Stephen Harper's political party during previous election campaigns.

Ironically his name is Mr. Burns. Dead serious, I couldn't make this up if I tried!


RE: One Sided Article
By masher2 (blog) on 12/17/2007 6:26:30 PM , Rating: 2
> " One of those two pumps was not connected to a backup power generator."

Incorrect. First of all, the issue isn't the pumps at all. Its the emergency starters for the pumps, starters which are only needed during a reactor overheat. Secondly, the starters were connected not only to the main power supply, but to a backup power supply as well.

The requirement was that these emergency starters be connected to a second, battery-powered backup supply, to provide a fourth line of defense.

> "The head of AECL...who just resigned over this issue, was a political appointee ...

That's what happens when you allow a government to run a complex business operation. Your positions are filled by incompetent political appointees, and nothing gets done properly.


When are they going to build a FUSION power plant?
By someguy743 on 12/17/2007 4:55:23 PM , Rating: 1
I think every country in the whole world ought to chip in some money for more FUSION ENERGY research. That's what you call true "sun energy". Build your own "mini-sun". Get a big fusion reactor built and TRY to make it work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

Fusion energy breakthroughs would definitely make the rich oil companies and the other dirty energy industries like coal nervous. VERY nervous. Fusion energy would put them out of business. Ultra cheap electricity means hydrogen and electric cars everywhere ... or whatever future technology emerges.

Mother Earth will be proud of us when we get there. The energy might be cheap enough to convert sea water into fresh water just as cheaply. Earth would get a lot greener. Plenty of good food for humans and the whole ecosystem. If we don't nuke ourselves, we just might get a little closer to Utopia in 100 years. Who knows? Too bad I'll be dead and can't see it.

I hear that they are making decent progress on fusion actually. New advancements in lasers could be used to fire them at deuterium and tritium pellets in order to get a fusion reaction going. It's just a matter of time before the scientists figure out how to do it . I would just like for them to get around to mastering the technology in MY lifetime instead of 2-3 generations from now. They will be the ones to enjoy ultra cheap energy. Fusion is much safer and environmentally responsible than fission nuclear energy. It's darn near impossible to have a "reactor meltdown" or whatever with fusion and there's very little or no nuclear waste.




By BMFPitt on 12/17/2007 5:05:16 PM , Rating: 2
I remember in the mid-late 90's when my HS physics book said that fusion would be our main source of power by 1990 or so. Also, that we'd have moon colonies by now.


By RedStar on 12/18/2007 8:09:57 AM , Rating: 2
a book in 1995+ predicted fusion by 1990?

lol :)


By BMFPitt on 12/18/2007 8:14:46 AM , Rating: 2
The book was from the 60's or so... Pretty common thing in American public schools.


By FITCamaro on 12/18/2007 10:27:18 AM , Rating: 2
Heh. I went to a private Catholic school. Our geography text books still showed Germany as two countries. This was in 1999.


By masher2 (blog) on 12/17/2007 5:43:40 PM , Rating: 2
> "It's darn near impossible to have a "reactor meltdown" or whatever with fusion and there's very little or no nuclear waste. "

We *already* have the technology to build nuclear reactors that cannot melt down, and little to no waste. It's called the "Rubbiatron", and is a modified form of fission power. Unfortunately governments have shown little interest in building them.


By elFarto on 12/18/2007 5:50:46 AM , Rating: 2
Also, Integral Fast Reactors seem quite promising.


By Haltech on 12/17/2007 11:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, if lithion ion battery cars are so expensive today, imagine fusion cars.


By sviola on 12/18/2007 7:10:16 AM , Rating: 2
They have already started to build a Fusion Power Plant in South France. It should be finished in 2016. It is also a joint project from the EU, US, Canada, Japan, Russia, China and a few others.

It will be used for testing power production viability and for some scientific research for about 5 - 10 years, providing the needed knowledge to build Fusion Power Plants to provide energy to industries and the population.

But there are other alternative sources for energy:

- There are some very interesting wind powered stations that deliver a huge amount of power, that should see the day of light in the near future.
- Japan will send it's first microwave energy satellite into orbit next year, which will provide energy to a power plant on the Earth.
- There're some very interesting sea wave powered power plants working in the UK and Ireland that deliver a few hundred kW and there's a plant that will be constructed the next few years in Ireland (or UK, I can't recall) that will provide a few hundred MW.


And...
By Quiescent on 12/17/2007 8:59:57 PM , Rating: 2
In Canada, milk comes in bags.
'Nuff said.




RE: And...
By lumbergeek on 12/18/2007 12:26:48 AM , Rating: 2
Really? I haven't seen a milk bag in decades.

I AM CANADAIAN.

Quiescent - thou art a maroon.


RE: And...
By rdeegvainl on 12/18/2007 6:17:34 AM , Rating: 2
isn't maroon a color? or is that Canadian slang for something else?


RE: And...
By Quiescent on 12/18/2007 7:14:26 AM , Rating: 2
Oh no! Are thou going to send me to jail for plagirism of a comic's statement that I do not know of?

Maybe you didn't realize it was a joke.


RE: And...
By Runiteshark on 12/18/2007 12:23:05 PM , Rating: 2
In Norway bread comes in cans.


RE: And...
By arazok on 12/18/2007 2:33:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yes it does. As well as cartons and juggs.

Bags are popular because they are much cheaper then the alternatives (I personally refuse to buy them...pain in the ass.). In the US it's almost exclusively jugs, because Consumers won't buy anything else. Canada would be the same, except there is a government imposed monopoly on Dairy products in Canada. You can't open a Dairy farm without a license, and all the licenses are in the hands of existing dairy farmers.

This lack of competition allows Dairy farmers to charge whatever they please for milk. We pay nearly double for a gallon of Milk then an American. This added cost forces some consumers to choose bags because the price differences are more significant. In total, Canadian consumers get ripped to the tune of 2.5 Billion per year by this Government imposed monopoly.

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/newsre...


By Donkeyshins on 12/17/2007 3:11:51 PM , Rating: 2
While I'm not necessarily anti-nuclear power, it seems as if this is a PR announcement from the NRI (or whatever the Canadian equivalent is). Just sayin'...




By TomZ on 12/17/2007 3:24:59 PM , Rating: 3
I agree that the point of this article is to increase awareness of the safety, efficiency, and "greenness" of nuclear power plants. But what's wrong with that?

I especially think it is important to counter the FUD from so-called "environmental" groups like Greenpeace that are actively trying to stop any/all nuclear power.


By RedStar on 12/18/2007 8:13:39 AM , Rating: 2
scary that the new generation considers the dangers of nuclear power to have been some environmental conspiracy.

*waves nuclear power flag*

I don't think "civilization" will make it past 2100.

Ah well :)


By TomZ on 12/18/2007 9:41:25 AM , Rating: 2
The dangers are there, but they are greatly exaggerated by the so-called environmentalists. If you look at the history of nuclear power, the risks and rewards are both clearly established.

But these are the same people who would have us back living in caves getting our heat from small fires, so I don't personally take it too seriously.


"New" not "National Democratic Party"
By Proton on 12/17/2007 6:07:01 PM , Rating: 2
Its "New Democratic Party" not "National Democratic Party".
Though I don't know how many decades old you have to be before you stop calling yourself "New".




RE: "New" not "National Democratic Party"
By lumbergeek on 12/18/2007 12:28:23 AM , Rating: 2
Right up until somebody comes up with a newer one!

;-)


By toonces on 12/18/2007 5:16:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the Liberal controlled Senate, where it also received the necessary approval.


Technically, Senators are appointed by the Governor General, on the advice of the Prime Minister - but you're right in saying most were appointed by Liberal PMs.

Like the US, Canada has a bicameral legislature. However, unlike the US they don't hold much defacto power over the legislative process. They blocked only 4 bills of the thousands introduced through the entire 90's and that was one of it's "most active" periods. Might as well say that Michaƫlle Jean gave her assent as well - being that she must also approve all legislation before it can become law ;)


By arazok on 12/18/2007 2:38:02 PM , Rating: 2
How do you call yourself 'Democratic' when you're only one step to the right of the Communist party?

NDP is the perfect name for the NDP. Nothing they stand for makes any sense, so why should their name be any different?


Politicians
By Andy35W on 12/18/2007 8:26:36 AM , Rating: 2
It's interesting to note that politicians can over rule the country's appointed nuclear safety body whenever it likes. Which does make you wonder whether safety being paramount is actually being upheld here?

The blog comment

"Few realize the advances in containment, safeguard measures, and fuel recycling that make nuclear accidents in modern well-maintained plants a thing of the past"

That would involve perfect design and perfect maintenance and because humans are involved with both then you cannot say that is true; so you cannot claim nuclear accidents are a thing of the past. It's hope rather than a realistic proposition.




RE: Politicians
By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2007 10:12:00 AM , Rating: 2
> "It's interesting to note that politicians can over rule the country's appointed nuclear safety body whenever it likes"

The "appointed nuclear safety body" is an organ of that same government. In fact, many of its members were appointed by those same politicians. So what's suprising in their decisions occasionally being overruled? Especially in this case, where their decision clearly lies against the bes interests of the citizens and the country?


RE: Politicians
By Andy35W on 12/19/2007 8:25:20 AM , Rating: 2
>The "appointed nuclear safety body" is an organ of that same government. In fact, many of its members were appointed by those same politicians. So what's suprising in their decisions occasionally being overruled? Especially in this case, where their decision clearly lies against the bes interests of the citizens and the country?

The interests of the citizens of the country is a good point in this specific case due to what they produce, so yes I agree it is hard to determine what is for the best and so which option to choose.

I also agree that body was appointed by the government, but once appointed then the decisions by those experts should not be over-ruled by none experts, especially when those none experts are politicians. That's why politicians appoint regulatory bodies, to make the right decisions.

It's if NASA said the shuttle could not go up due to factor X Y or Z and then the US government decided it should anyway because of A, B and C. Is that a way to safely run anything?


OH OH..
By just4U on 12/18/2007 6:57:02 PM , Rating: 2
Ok from reading all this I got to thinking about something.. Last week my cousin asked to borrow one of my CD's. Did I break the law by letting him borrow it? I mean that's sharing to right? Plus he has a PC so god knows what the hell he might be doing with it.

What I am getting at here .. Is you don't need to have a computer, to share... and we do it all the time.




RE: OH OH..
By just4U on 12/18/2007 6:58:53 PM , Rating: 2
Uhh... lol

This was meant for a far different topic ... http://www.dailytech.com/RIAA+CD+Ripping+is+Unauth...

<sigh>


RE: OH OH..
By TomZ on 12/18/2007 8:56:35 PM , Rating: 1
I don't think it is a problem, unless you knew your cousin intended to copy it. A CD should be able to be used just like a book - you can loan a book, get it back, no problem.


AECL
By JoKeRr on 12/17/2007 5:53:54 PM , Rating: 2
I had an interview with ppl from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited last month, they actually offered a tour to one of my friend to the chalk river lab.

Only problem with that place is the town has a population of 800 people, split between the people working at the chalk river lab and canadian armies reserves :S, so really not much fun.

A lot of isotopes we have at school (Cs 137, Co 60, gamma & alpha sources etc) were all made by AECL from that lab actually. And just in case if you're afraid someone will steal a radioactive source, apparently for a new medical (cancer treating) Cobalt 60 source, if you hold it for a few minutes in your hand, the gamma radiation will be high enough to kill.




"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki